Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 November 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dimadick (talk | contribs) at 08:48, 22 November 2013 (→Category:American people of Latin American descent). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< November 19 November 21 >

November 20

Category:Fictional state lieutenant governors of the United States

Nominator's rationale: Overly specific, particularly as there's only one article in the cat. Suggest upmerge pbp 21:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Afro-Colombian people

Nominator's rationale: This is the format ("X people of African descent") for all other South American countries (see Category:Latin American people of African descent). Liz Read! Talk! 19:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bishops of Thebes, Greece

Nominator's rationale: This is no need for it to be disambiguated. While it's true that there is a Thebes in Egypt (and the USA), there has never been a see of Thebes outside of Greece AFAIK. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've never seen a category for a titular see. In any case, none of these titular sees has a Wiki page, let alone a category. So no need for disambiguation exists. If it did, the article page is where it would take place. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, all Catholic titular sees correspond to actual sees that existed under the Roman Empire and, later, the Crusader states. So for Thebes in Egypt we are talking about actual, not titular, bishops from the 1st century until the Muslim conquest in the 640s, and for Phthiotic Thebes until the 8th/9th century. The fact that these articles and categories don't yet exist is irrelevant. The parent article for the Greek city is "Thebes, Greece", and all categories that refer to it and are not unambiguous in some other way should follow it. Constantine ✍ 22:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is. (edit conflict) This is clearly not about the titular sees in pars infidelum given to Catholic suffrigan bishops, but to substantive sees of the Orthodox and Coptic churches. I suspect that the Catholic church only chose these places as titular sees, because at an earlier period, before the schism, there were substantive bishops who were in communion with Rome for these sees. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Women who have explored both Polar regions

Nominator's rationale: Not a defining intersection category with gender; there is no "people who have explored both polar regions" parent. This is also a violation of the last-rung rule, and would tend to ghettoize these women. Finally, I just don't think we need these sorts of multi-categories - e.g. people who have climbed two mountains, people who have sailed across two big oceans, people who have won two famous awards, etc. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval Ukraine people

Nominator's rationale: Duplicate categories and there is no pattern of naming for the parent category. I think "Medieval Ukrainian people" is less awkward than "People of medieval Ukraine". Liz Read! Talk! 14:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed an Admin needed to do this...I don't know how the page histories are combined. Liz Read! Talk! 19:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taíno categories

Nominator's rationale: The main page uses the spelling Taíno, rather than Taino.

Category:Tragic villains

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is basically an unmanageable category. It was originally filled with lots of characters which do not qualify (Stewie Griffin, Sheldon Cooper) and others which were matters of interpretation (Darth Maul, The Master). It's basically well outside of Wikipedia's remit to be categorising characters in this way - it's not even an established archetype with rules. It has to go.Zythe (talk) 11:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
offtopic here, but yeah, wondering whether RS truly discuss this as a group.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic, but AfterElton would tend to complain whenever there was a gay villain character who was out-and-out crazy, or conversely praise one who was layered and deliciously evil. I suspect of the many texts about LGBT characters in comics (mostly superheroes), LGBT supervillains receive some attention, although the focus on "gay people who happen to be evil in fiction" probably encompasses a lot of film/TV examples as well. Perhaps this is an area to look at in LGBT characters in comics or discussed at the WikiProject.Zythe (talk) 16:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:T-pop

Nominator's rationale: "T-pop" is an obscure term unlikely to be understood by readers. The main article has seen a mess of cut-&-paste moves, but should probably be at Thai pop music. This would also bring the category in line with Category:French pop music and Category:Finnish pop music. Paul_012 (talk) 10:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Organisations based in Thailand

Nominator's rationale: Also

Thailand has no specific ties to either variety of English, and individual organis/zations will usually arbitrarily choose either spelling. However, "organizations" (with a z) is acceptable in both American and British English (though less commonly in the latter).[3] Per WP:COMMONALITY, the spelling which is common to both varieties should be preferred. See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 June 9#Category:Organizations based in Bangkok. Paul_012 (talk) 09:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • What right to the Americans have to impose their spelling on to Thailand? Both Burma and Malaysia are next door and are former British colonies, so that they should be expected to use the preferred British spelling. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure how I could better rephrase my rationale. What I said was that the z spelling is correct in BOTH British and American English, while the s spelling is not. I'm also not sure how Burma and Malaysia's status should have anything to do with our perception of English language usage in Thailand. --Paul_012 (talk) 22:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Northern Songs

Nominator's rationale: Too little content —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American people of Latin American descent

Nominator's rationale: Duplicate categories but I have no opinion on which one should be merged into the other. Liz Read! Talk! 04:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide a link to an appropriate article that explains the difference? It would really help support your argument that they aren't different names for the same place. Liz Read! Talk! 14:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Latin America includes Mexico and most of the countries of Central and South America that use Romance languages. It doesn't include places like Suriname (Dutch) and the non-French edition of Guyana. South America never includes Mexico, and includes the non-Latin South American countries. So the first is a Social Similarity/Language grouping of countries, the other strictly Geographic. I don't know what the best article is for the listing of countries, but they aren't equivalent and we seem to have the overlap sorted well already as the categories stand. Category:American people of Brazilian descent should be in both; Category:American people of Mexican descent should only be in Latin America, Category:American people of Surinamese descent would only be in South America. It should probably be left as it is because it's describing two distinct and historically significant groupings that on first glance have a lot of overlap. __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your explanation, __ E L A Q U E A T E. I think I will include South America as this grouping is based on geography, not cultural similarity. It's simply about continents, not culture. Liz Read! Talk! 19:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Google is your friend Liz... Latin America includes some central american countries and caribbean countries. Its more or less a superset of south america, but not entirely, as a few countries like Guyana could be left out.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Obi-Wan Kenobi. These are simple categories based on divisions of nationalities by continent. not shared culture. I have the U.N. guidelines for "macro geographical (continental) regions and geographical sub-regions" and I guess I'll use that as a guide. Liz Read! Talk! 19:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Category editors do not get to find and choose to use sources from anywhere. Sources are found the WP articles underlying the categories. In the case, see Latin America and South America. There is no reason to change anything here. Hmains (talk) 03:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a "category editor", just an editor. Since sources like the U.S. census are used on WP for ethnic categorizations, I don't consider the statistics office of the United Nations to just be a "source from anywhere".
I do get to find and choose sources but I base my categorizations on existing WP category structure and article talk page discussions along with WP resources like WP:EGRS. If I have a question on whether a change is appropriate, as in this case, I bring it to WP:CFD or to a related WikiProject where more experienced editors can weigh in. It's through discussions here and elsewhere that we all can learn. Liz Read! Talk! 18:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, we should delete the hundred or so categories that fall under Category:American people by ethnic or national origin and the thousands of other categories that identify ethnic origin for other countries? Liz Read! Talk! 14:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your first sentence but I don't follow you here, the part about the "categories in two pages". Liz Read! Talk! 22:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Those two are Category:American people of Latin American descent to Category:American people of South American descent pbp 15:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification, pbp . Liz Read! Talk! 18:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • reluctant keep, as container categories only. I'm not totally convinced we need to have overlapping trees for latin america and South/central/Caribbean, as the chance for things being left out just increases as categories evolve, but unless we do a prune of latin american categories at scale we should keep this one.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as I understand it from __ E L A Q U E A T E, South America is the continent (with Panama as the dividing line between North and South) and Latin America is about countries with cultural ties.
So, Mexico and Cuba are both in North America and Latin America. Guyana is in South America but not in Latin America. I was looking for just one category when I was grouping descent categories by continent which is why I suggested a merge. Now that I know the distinction, it's clearer what the decision should be. It's been a helpful discussion and although I now see that I could have found the answer elsewhere on Wikipedia, I'm glad I made the proposal and could be better informed. Liz Read! Talk! 18:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Olympics

Nominator's rationale: Olympics is a redirect to Olympic Games, main article of this category. NickSt (talk) 02:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_November_20&oldid=582791479"